The New Calvinism – TIME Magazine

TIME Magazine’s Article on “The New Calvinism.”

Mars Hill Church on Nightline

Are ETs & UFOs Real?

by Jason Lisle

Taken from: www.answersingenesis.org

December 6, 2007

Are there extraterrestrial life-forms out there? The question of life on other planets is a hot topic in our culture today. Science fiction movies and television shows often depict strange creatures from far-away planets. But these ideas are not limited merely to science fiction programming. Many secular scientists believe that one day we will actually discover life on other planets. There are even projects like the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) that scan the heavens with powerful radio telescopes listening for signals from intelligent aliens. Many Christians have bought into the idea of extraterrestrial alien life. But is this idea really biblical? The Christian should constantly examine ideas in light of Scripture and take “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

The Evolution Connection

The idea of extraterrestrial life stems largely from a belief in evolution. Recall that in the evolutionary view, the earth is “just another planet”—one where the conditions just happened to be right for life to form and evolve. If there are countless billions of other planets in our galaxy, then surely at least a handful of these worlds have also had the right conditions. Extraterrestrial life is almost inevitable in an evolutionary worldview.

However, the notion of alien life does not square well with Scripture. The earth is unique. God designed the earth for life (Isaiah 45:18). The other planets have an entirely different purpose than does the earth, and thus, they are designed differently. In Genesis 1 we read that God created plants on the earth on Day 3, birds to fly in the atmosphere and marine life to swim in the ocean on Day 5, and animals to inhabit the land on Day 6. Human beings were also made on Day 6 and were given dominion over the animals. But where does the Bible discuss the creation of life on the “lights in the expanse of the heavens”? There is no such description because the lights in the expanse were not designed to accommodate life. God gave care of the earth to man, but the heavens are the Lord’s (Psalm 115:16). From a biblical perspective, extraterrestrial life does not seem reasonable.

Problems are multiplied when we consider the possibility of intelligent alien life. Science fiction programming abounds with races of people who evolved on other worlds. We see examples of Vulcans and Klingons—pseudohumans similar to us in most respects but different in others. As a plot device, these races allow the exploration of the human condition from the perspective of an outsider. Although very entertaining, such alien races are theologically problematic. Intelligent alien beings cannot be redeemed. God’s plan of redemption is for human beings: those descended from Adam. Let us examine the conflict between the salvation message and the notion of alien life.

The Redemption of Mankind

The Bible teaches that the first man, Adam, rebelled against God (Genesis 3). As a result, sin and death entered the world (Romans 5:12). We are all descended from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:20) and have inherited from them a sin nature (Romans 6:6, 20). This is a problem: sin is a barrier that prevents man from being right with God (Isaiah 59:2). But God loves us despite our sin and provided a plan of redemption—a way to be reconciled with God.

After Adam and Eve sinned, God made coats of skins to cover them (Genesis 3:21). He therefore had to kill at least one animal. This literal action is symbolic of our salvation; an innocent Lamb (Christ—the Lamb of God) would be sacrificed to provide a covering for sin (John 1:29). In the Old Testament, people would sacrifice animals to the Lord as a reminder of their sin (Hebrews 10:3) and as a symbol of the One to come, the Lord Jesus, who would actually pay the penalty for sin.

The animal sacrifices did not actually pay the penalty for sin (Hebrews 10:4, 11). Animals are not related to us; their shed blood cannot count for ours. But the blood of Christ can. Christ is a blood relative of ours since He is descended from Adam as are we; all human beings are of “one blood” ( Acts 17:26). Furthermore, since Christ is also God, His life is of infinite value, and thus, His death can pay for all the sins of all people. That is why only the Lord Himself could be our Savior (Isaiah 45:21). Therefore, Christ died once for all (Hebrews 10:10).

The Redemption of ET?

When we consider how the salvation plan might apply to any hypothetical extraterrestrial (but otherwise human-like) beings, we are presented with a problem. If there were Vulcans or Klingons out there, how would they be saved? They are not blood relatives of Jesus, and so Christ’s shed blood cannot pay for their sin. One might at first suppose that Christ also visited their world, lived there, and died there as well, but this is antibiblical. Christ died once for all (1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:27–28, Hebrews 10:10). Jesus is now and forever both God and man; but He is not an alien.

One might suppose that alien beings have never sinned, in which case they would not need to be redeemed. But then another problem emerges: they suffer the effects of sin, despite having never sinned. Adam’s sin has affected all of creation— not just mankind. Romans 8:20–22 makes it clear that the entirety of creation suffers under the bondage of corruption. These kinds of issues highlight the problem of attempting to incorporate an antibiblical notion into the Christian worldview.

Extraterrestrial life is an evolutionary concept; it does not comport with the biblical teachings of the uniqueness of the earth and the distinct spiritual position of human beings. Of all the worlds in the universe, it was the earth that God Himself visited, taking on the additional nature of a human being, dying on a cross, and rising from the dead in order to redeem all who would trust in Him. The biblical worldview sharply contrasts with the secular worldview when it comes to alien life. So, which worldview does the scientific evidence support? Do modern observations support the secular notion that the universe is teeming with life, or the biblical notion that earth is unique?

Where Is Everybody?

So far, no one has discovered life on other planets or detected any radio signals from intelligent aliens. This is certainly what a biblical creationist would expect. Secular astronomers continue to search for life on other worlds, but they have found only rocks and inanimate matter. Their radio searches are met with silence. The real world is the biblical world—a universe designed by God with the earth at the spiritual focal point, not an evolutionary universe teeming with life.

When it comes to extraterrestrial life, science is diametrically opposed to the evolutionary mentality. We currently have no evidence of alien life-forms. This problem is not lost on the secular scientists. It has been said that the atomic scientist Enrico Fermi was once discussing the topic of extraterrestrial life when he asked the profound question, “Where is everybody?” Since there are quite possibly multiple billions of planets in our galaxy, and since in the secular view these are all accidents, it is almost inevitable that some of these had the right conditions for life to evolve. And if some of these worlds are billions of years older than ours, then at least some of them would have evolved intelligent life eons ago. The universe should therefore have countless numbers of technologically superior civilizations, any one of which could have colonized our galaxy ages ago. Yet, we find no evidence of these civilizations. Where is everybody? This problem has become known as the “Fermi paradox.”

This paradox for evolution is a feature of creation. We have seen that the earth is designed for life. With its oceans of liquid water, a protective atmosphere containing abundant free oxygen, and a distance from the sun that is just right for life, earth was certainly designed by God to be inhabited. But the other planets of the universe were not. From the sulfuric acid clouds of Venus to the frozen wasteland of Pluto, the other worlds of our solar system are beautiful and diverse, but they are not designed for life.

What about UFOs?

Sometimes after I speak on the topic of extraterrestrial life, someone will ask me about UFOs. A UFO (unidentified flying object) is just that—an object seen in the sky that is unidentified to the person seeing it. People often want me to explain a sighting of some unknown flying object which they or often a friend have claimed to see. (Sometimes the implication is that if I can’t explain it, it somehow proves that it must be an alien spacecraft; but such reasoning is completely vacuous.¹) These kinds of questions are unreasonable. It is one thing to be asked to interpret evidence that we have, but it is unrealistic to ask someone to interpret undocumented second- or third-hand stories with no actual evidence available for inspection.

There is no doubt that some people sincerely have seen things in the sky that they do not understand. This is hardly surprising since there are lots of things “up there,” which can be misunderstood by people not familiar with them. These include Venus, satellites, the international space station, the space shuttle, rockets, Iridium flares, manmade aircraft, internal reflections, meteors, balloons, fireflies, aurorae, birds, ball lightning, lenticular clouds, parhelia, etc. However, a person unfamiliar with these would see a UFO, since the object is “unidentified” to him or her. It is how people interpret what they see that can be questionable.

Remember that we always interpret evidence in light of our worldview. It is therefore crucial to have a correct, biblical worldview. The fallacious worldview of atheism/naturalism may lead someone to draw erroneous conclusions about what they see. From a biblical worldview, we expect to occasionally see things that are not easily explained, since our minds are finite. But UFOs are not alien spacecraft, and of course, there is no tangible evidence to support such a notion.

Why the Hype?

In the 1990s the television series The X-files entertained millions of fans with stories of aliens, government conspiracies, and one dedicated FBI agent’s relentless search for truth. The show’s motto, “The truth is out there,” is a well-known phrase for sci-fi fans. But why is there such hype surrounding the notion of extraterrestrial life? Why is science fiction programming so popular? Why does SETI spend millions of dollars searching for life in outer space?

The discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life would certainly be seen as a vindication of evolution; it is an expectation from a naturalistic worldview. But the desire to meet aliens, especially intelligent, technologically advanced ones, seems much more deeply felt than merely to vindicate evolutionary predictions. What is the real issue? I’ve heard a number of different answers from secular astronomers.

In some cases a belief in ETs may stem from a feeling of cosmic loneliness: “If there are aliens, then we would not be alone in the universe.” In many cases it comes from an academic desire to learn the mysteries of the universe; a highly developed alien race might have advanced knowledge to pass on to us. Perhaps such knowledge is not merely academic; the hypothetical aliens may know the answers to fundamental questions of existence: “Why am I here? What is the meaning of life?” and so on. An advanced alien race might have medical knowledge far exceeding our own—knowledge which could be used to cure our diseases. Perhaps their medical technology would be so far advanced that they even hold the secret of life and death; with such incredible medical knowledge, perhaps human beings would no longer have to die—ever.

In a way, a belief in extraterrestrial life has become a secular replacement for God. God is the one who can heal every disease. God is the one in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited (Colossians 2:3). God is the one who can answer the fundamental questions of our existence. God alone possesses the gift of eternal life (John 17:3). It is not surprising that the unbelieving scientist would feel a sense of cosmic loneliness, having rejected his Creator. But we are not alone in the universe; there is God. God created us for fellowship with Him; thus, we have an innate need for Him and for purpose. Although human beings have rejected God, in Adam and by our sins as well, our need for fellowship with Him remains.

When I think of the majority of intelligent scientists who have studied God’s magnificent creation but have nonetheless rejected Him and have instead chosen to believe in aliens and millions of years of evolution, I am reminded of Romans 1:18–25. God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—are clearly revealed in the natural world so that there is no excuse for rejecting God or suppressing the truth about Him. The thinking of man apart from God is nothing more than futile speculations. Exchanging the truth of God, such as creation, for a lie, such as evolution, and turning to a mere creature such as hypothetical aliens for answers is strikingly similar to what is recorded in Romans 1:25.

But when we start from the Bible, the evidence makes sense. The universe is consistent with the biblical teaching that the earth is a special creation. The magnificent beauty and size of a universe, which is apparently devoid of life except for one little world where life abounds, is exactly what we would expect from a biblical worldview. The truth is not “out there;” the truth is in there—in the Bible! The Lord Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). So, when we base our thinking on what God has said in His Word, we find that the universe makes sense.

Footnotes

1. The argument is that alien spacecraft could not be explained by a natural phenomenon. Therefore, it is suggested that witnessing something that cannot be explained naturally must prove the existence of alien spacecraft. This is a logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent.” It’s equivalent to saying, “All white dwarf stars are white. Fred is white; therefore Fred is a white dwarf star.” Back

In God We Do Not Trust. Mark Driscoll

In God We Do Not Trust

Mark Driscoll

In my years of pastoral ministry I have worked very hard to not be political. I believe that my job as a pastor is to preach and teach the Bible well so that my people make their decisions, including their voting decisions, out of their faith convictions.

This election season which has dominated the cultural conversation for many months has been particularly insightful regarding the incessant gospel thirst that abides deep in the heart of the men and women who bear God’s image. Without endorsing or maligning either political party or their respective presidential candidates, I am hopeful that a few insights from the recent election season are of help, particularly to younger evangelicals.

First, people are longing for a savior who will atone for their sins. In this election, people thirst for a savior who will atone for their economic sins of buying things they did not need with money they did not have. The result is a mountain of credit debt they cannot pay and a desperate yearning that somehow a new president will save them from economic hell.

Second, people are longing for a king who will keep them safe from terror in his kingdom. In the Old Testament the concept of a peaceable kingdom is marked by the word shalom. In shalom there is not only the absence of sin, war, strife, and suffering but also the presence of love, peace, harmony, and health. And, this thirst for shalom is so parched that every election people cannot help but naively believe that if their candidate simply wins shalom is sure to come despite sin and the curse.

The bottom line is obvious to those with gospel eyes. People are longing for Jesus, and tragically left voting for mere presidential candidates. For those whose candidate wins today there will be some months of groundless euphoric faith in that candidate and the atoning salvation that their kingdom will bring. But, in time, their supporters will see that no matter who wins the presidency, they are mere mortals prone to sin, folly, and self-interest just like all the other sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. To help extend naïve false hope as long as possible, a great enemy will be named and demonized as the one who is hindering all of the progress to atone for our sins and usher in our kingdom. If the Democrats win it will be the rich, and if the Republicans win it will be the terrorists. This diversionary trick is as old as Eve who blamed her sin on Satan rather than repenting. The lie is that it’s always someone else’s fault and we’re always the victim of sinners and never the sinner.

Speaking of repentance, sadly, no matter who wins there will be no call to personal repentance of our own personal sins which contributes to cultural suffering and decline such as our pride, gluttony, covetousness, greed, indebtedness, self-righteousness, perversion, and laziness. And, in four years we’ll do it all again and pretend that this time things will be different. Four years after that, we’ll do it yet again. And, we’ll continue driving around this cul de sac until Jesus returns, sets up his throne, and puts an end to folly once and for all.

In the meantime, I would encourage all preachers to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and repentance of personal sin. He alone can truly atone for our sins. He alone can deliver us from a real hell. He alone is our sinless and great King. And, he alone has a Shalom kingdom to offer.

Lastly, for those preachers who have gotten sidetracked for the cause of a false king and a false kingdom by making too much of the election and too little of Jesus, today is a good day to practice repentance in preparation to preach it on Sunday. Just give it some time. The thirst will remain that only Jesus can quench. So, we’ve still got work to do….until we see King Jesus and voting is done once and for all.

• Mark Driscoll’s blog

Straight Edge, A hardcore Religion. by Joshua Guilbeau

Straight Edge, A hardcore Religion. by Joshua Guilbeau

Straight edge refers to a lifestyle that started within the hardcore punk subculture whose adherents refrain from using alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs. Some adherents may also abstain from caffeine and casual sex. The term was coined by the 1980s hardcore punk band Minor Threat in the song “Straight Edge”. There is considerable debate over what constitutes a straight edge lifestyle. Adherents’ main objective is to not poison the body in any way. Some people in the straight edge movement embrace a vegetarian lifestyle and others abstain from all animal products, a philosophy known as veganism. These two choices are not essential aspects of the movement.

Being in the hardcore scene for about 6 to 7 years now, i’ve seen straight edge blow up. It has become huge in the past 4 years. Around 2004, hardcore music took a step back from the stylish “emo-core” that has so dominated the “hardcore” scene. But in the past 4 years hardcore has somewhat gone back to that 80’s style mentality. The music is more aggressive but that old school spirit has resurfaced. Straight edge has become more popular than ever. In my opinion it has become somewhat of an underground religion that is recruiting thousands of members everyday.

Your two sides of sXe is:

1. Positive or Posi

Posi sXe is a choice a person makes to be drug, alcohol, tobacco and promiscuous sex free. They do not force anyone to believe their way and they don’t care if others don’t agree. It’s their thing.

2. Militant

Militant sXe is your FSU (friends stand united) style guys who will beat you down if they see you smoking. More gang like than anything else, it’s just a bunch of meat heads who have taken somewhat of a cool concept and have turned it into criminal and gang activity . Violence just for the sake of violence. Douche bags.

Now the most important stuff… What does the bible say?

Straight Edge beliefs seem good on the surface, but what does the bible say about straight edge?

From what i have seen, straight edge has become just another self-righteous religion. I’m not knocking Positive sXe. If you want to make that choice, cool. I have friends that are sXe. I’m asking what is the motive behind that choice. Is it to be better than others? Does it make you feel you have an advantage on people?

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better^[a]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Romans 3:9-18

It has become so steeped in religion.

Religion defined: a set of rules to live by that you work towards to make you worthy or better.

That’s my definition.

Just like in the Christian realm. People, pastors and churches make up ALL these rules to live by: don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t get tattoos, don’t cuss, don’t, don’t, don’t… If you don’t do all these things your a good person. This leads to one of two things, pride or despair. Pride being: I did everything. I kept all these rules. I’m better than that dude. I’ve made it. I’m good enough.

Despair being: i don’t know if I was good enough. I don’t think I kept these rules like I could or should have.

No hope.

Why?

None of this is grounded in Jesus. SXE is cool and stuff, but if it’s not grounded in Jesus, it’s crap.

Isa. 64:6 says “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;“

Rags in the the real translation is Menstrual rags.

It’s as good as nasty, bloody tampons in the sight of God.

Religion is gross and offensive to the gospel. It’s an enemy. Jesus fought so hard against it to the point of down right anger.

John 2:15 “And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.”

Jesus got pissed. He hates religion cause it spits on the sacrifice He made.

Religion and Straight edge are a lot alike. They have set up rules to live by to make themselves ‘holy’ and ‘righteous’ and it doesn’t bring anything but Pride (which is the worst sin of all) and Despair with no hope.

BUT. Jesus is the answer. He became the sacrifice that was required to fulfill the law. So we don’t have to live by religious rules, and most of the laws of the Old Testament. He knew we couldn’t live them out. Thats why He died. He gave us those rules to show how crappy we are and how great His love is. That He would fulfill everything God required.

I say, screw sXe, screw religion, screw anything that takes away the message of Jesus and grace and mercy without which we would all perish. You can’t find hope in sXe. You wont find grace and love in religion.

Only Christ can give salvation, hope and love.

Young, Restless, Reformed.

Young, Restless, Reformed
Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.
by Collin Hansen

taken from christianitytoday.com

September 22, 2006

Nothing in her evangelical upbringing prepared Laura Watkins for John Piper.

“I was used to a very conversational preaching style,” said Watkins, 21. “And having someone wave his arms and talk really loudly made me a little scared.”

Watkins shouldn’t be embarrassed. Piper does scare some people. It’s probably his unrelenting intensity, demanding discipline, and singular passion—for the glory of God. Those themes resound in Desiring God, Piper’s signature book. The pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis has sold more than 275,000 copies of Desiring God since 1986. Piper has personally taken his message of “Christian hedonism” to audiences around the world, such as the Passion conferences for college-age students. Passion attracted 40,000 students outside Memphis in 2000 and 18,000 to Nashville earlier this year.

Not all of these youth know Piper’s theological particulars. But plenty do, and Piper, more than anyone else, has contributed to a resurgence of Reformed theology among young people. You can’t miss the trend at some of the leading evangelical seminaries, like Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which reports a significant Reformed uptick among students over the past 20 years. Or the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, now the largest Southern Baptist seminary and a Reformed hotbed. Piper, 60, has tinged the movement with the God-exalting intensity of Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century Puritan pastor-theologian. Not since the decades after his death have evangelicals heaped such attention on Edwards.

Reformed theology often goes by the name Calvinism, after the renowned 16th-century Reformation theologian John Calvin. Yet even Edwards rejected the label, saying he neither depended on Calvin nor always agreed with him. Still, it is Calvin’s followers who produced the famous acrostic TULIP to describe the “doctrines of grace” that are the hallmarks of traditional Reformed theology: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. (See “It’s All About God.”)

Already, this latest surge of Reformed theology has divided Southern Baptist churches and raised questions about the future of missions. Its exuberant young advocates reject generic evangelicalism and tout the benefits of in-depth biblical doctrine. They have once again brought the perennial debate about God’s sovereignty and humans’ free will to the forefront.

The evidence for the resurgence is partly institutional and partly anecdotal. But it’s something that a variety of church leaders observe. While the Emergent “conversation” gets a lot of press for its appeal to the young, the new Reformed movement may be a larger and more pervasive phenomenon. It certainly has a much stronger institutional base. I traveled to some of the movement’s leading churches and institutions and talked to theologians, pastors, and parishioners, trying to understand Calvinism’s new appeal and how it is changing American churches.

God Starts the Party

A pastors’ conference is the wrong place to schedule a private meeting with Joshua Harris. He didn’t even speak at the conference I attended, but we still struggled to find a quiet spot to talk at his hotel. Slight and short, Harris doesn’t stick out in crowds. But that doesn’t stop pastors from recognizing him and introducing themselves. The unassuming 31-year-old took time to chat with each of them, even as our interview stretched late into the night.

Harris was a leader among his generation even before he published I Kissed Dating Goodbye in 1997. But the bestseller introduced him to a wider evangelical audience, earning many fans and at least as many detractors. Now he pastors Covenant Life Church, a congregation of 3,800 in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Harris grew up as a youth leader in a seeker-sensitive church and later joined a charismatic congregation. Neither place emphasized doctrine. “Even just thinking doctrinally would have been foreign to me,” he explained. He knew enough to realize he didn’t like Calvinism, though. “I remember some of the first encounters I had with Calvinists,” Harris told another group of pastors during Mark Driscoll’s Reform and Resurge conference in Seattle in May. “I’m sorry to say that they represented the doctrines of grace with a total lack of grace. They were spiteful, cliquish, and arrogant. I didn’t even stick around to understand what they were teaching. I took one look at them and knew I didn’t want any part of it.”

Harris’s response is anything but uncommon in evangelical history. Reformed theology has periodically boomed and busted. Calvinists have always inspired foils, such as Jacob Arminius. The Dutch theologian argued that God frees up human will so people can accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. That debate prompted his critics to respond with TULIP. Reformed theology waned during the Second Great Awakening. Most recently, Calvinism has played second fiddle to the charismatic and seeker-sensitive/church-growth movements, all of which downplay many theological distinctives.

For Harris, things started changing when he read Piper describe God’s glory and breathtaking sovereignty. Later, C. J. Mahaney, a charismatic Calvinist and founding pastor of Covenant Life, took Harris under his wing and groomed him to take over the church. Mahaney, 51, turned Harris on to his hero, Charles Spurgeon, the great 19th-century Calvinistic Baptist preacher in London. Mahaney assigned him a number of texts, such as Iain H. Murray’s Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism. “I would have been reading Christian comic books if left to myself,” Harris told me, flashing the characteristic self-deprecating humor he shares with Mahaney.

The theological depth attracted Harris. “Once you’re exposed to [doctrine],” he said, “you see the richness in it for your own soul, and you’re ruined for anything else.”

He notices the same attraction among his cohorts. “I just think there’s such a hunger for the transcendent and for a God who is not just sitting around waiting for us to show up so that the party can get started.”

Passion conferences also inspired Harris to trust in a God who takes the initiative. Harris first attended Passion in 1999 and sought the help of conference founder Louie Giglio to plan a similar event, from which blossomed Harris’s New Attitude conferences. “Someone like Louie is saying, ‘You know what, it’s not about us, it’s about God’s glory, it’s about his renown.’ Now I don’t think most kids realize this, but that’s the first step down a pathway of Reformed theology. Because if you say that it’s not about you, well then you’re on that road of saying it’s not about your actions, your choosings, your determination.”

Passion’s God-exalting focus keeps Piper coming back to speak year after year. He attributes the attraction of Reformed theology to the spirit of Passion—namely, pairing demanding obedience with God’s grandeur. “They’re not going to embrace your theology unless it makes their hearts sing,” Piper said.

More Than a ‘Crazy Guy’

During the weekend when I visited Piper’s church, the college group was learning TULIP. The student teacher spent about 30 minutes explaining unconditional election. “You may never feel the weight, you will never feel the wonder of grace, until you finally relinquish your claim to have any part of your salvation,” he said. “It’s got to be unconditional.”

Following that talk, I met with a group that included Laura Watkins, a recent graduate of the University of Minnesota. Like Harris, Watkins grew up in an evangelical church that downplayed doctrine. Calvinism certainly wasn’t much of a draw for Watkins as she searched for a church in college. “The only exposure I had was high-school textbooks that teach about John Calvin as this crazy guy who burned people,” she said.

Yet she stayed for the spiritual maturity and depth she noticed in the church. Now she’s as articulate an advocate of Calvinism as I met. She unwittingly paraphrased Spurgeon as she explained her move toward Reformed theology. “When you first become a believer, almost everyone is an Arminian, because you feel like you made a decision,” Watkins said.

Watkins didn’t stop with election. An enlarged view of God’s authority changed the way she viewed evangelism, worship, and relationships. Watkins articulated how complementary roles for men and women go hand in hand with this type of Calvinism. “I believe God is sovereign and has ordered things in a particular way,” she explained. Just as “he’s chosen those who are going to know him before the foundations of the earth,” she said, “I don’t want to be rebelling against the way God ordered men and women to relate to one another.”

Piper no longer scares Watkins. He’s more like a father in the faith, though she says they have never spoken. Privately, Piper contrasts sharply with his authoritative pulpit persona. I dare say he’s even a little meek, if relentlessly serious. We mused on Reformed theology in his home in February following one of the last sermons he delivered before undergoing surgery for prostate cancer. He reflected on the rebellion he has unrepentantly fomented.

“One of the most common things I deal with in younger pastors is conflict with their senior pastors,” Piper said. “They’re a youth pastor, and they’ve gone to Trinity or read something [R. C.] Sproul or I wrote, and they say, ‘We’re really out of step. What should we do?’”

He tells them to be totally candid and ask permission to teach according to their newfound convictions, even if they are in Wesleyan-Arminian churches. Of course, he tells the young pastors to pray that their bosses would come to share their vision.

Baptist and Reformed

Starting in 1993, the largest Protestant denomination’s flagship seminary quickly lost at least 96 percent of its faculty. SBC inerrantists had tapped 33-year-old Al Mohler to head the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which until then had remained open to moderate and liberal professors. Mohler addressed the faculty and re-enforced the school’s confession of faith, derived from the landmark Reformed document, the Westminster Confession.

“I said, in sum, if this is what you believe, then we want you to stay. If not, then you have come here under false pretenses, and you must go,” Mohler, now 45, said. “As they would say, the battle was joined.”

Indeed, television cameras and news helicopters made it difficult for Mohler to work for a while. He still isn’t welcome in some Louisville churches. That’s not surprising, since no more than 4 faculty members—from more than 100—stayed with Southern after Mohler arrived.

Now it’s hard to believe that less than 15 years ago, Southern merited a reputation as a liberal seminary. Mohler has attracted a strong faculty and spurred enrollment to more than 4,300 students—which makes it the largest Southern Baptist seminary. But SBC conservatives may have gotten more than they bargained for in Mohler. The tireless public intellectual freely criticizes perceived SBC shortcomings, especially what he considers misguided doctrine. Oh, and Mohler is an unabashed Calvinist. His seminary now attracts and turns out a steady flow of young Reformed pastors.

“This generation of young Christians is more committed, more theologically intense, more theologically curious, more self-aware and self-conscious as believers because they were not raised in an environment of cultural Christianity,” Mohler said. “Or if they were, as soon as they arrived on a university campus, they found themselves in a hostile environment.” Mohler explained that Calvinism offers young people a countercultural alternative with deep roots.

Mohler’s analysis brought to mind one Southern seminarian I met in Louisville. Bradley Cochran grew up attending a mainline church with his family in rural Kentucky. He hated Sunday mornings, and by age 15 he had racked up a police rap sheet and developed a drug problem. But Cochran’s troubles softened his heart to the gospel, and he fled his hometown to enroll at Liberty University. While there, he eagerly shared the Good News and earned an award for his evangelistic enthusiasm. A classmate loaned him some Sproul books, where he learned about predestination. He grew to accept this doctrine, but he said other students criticized his Calvinism before he even understood what the term meant. They couldn’t understand how he squared God’s sovereign choice with evangelism. Those challenges only intensified his study of Reformed theology. He became emboldened to persuade others.

“I felt like Calvinism was more than abstract points of theology,” said Cochran, 25. “I felt you would get a much bigger view of God if you accepted these things, an understanding of justice and grace that would so deepen your affections for God, that would make you so much more grateful for his grace.”

Cochran bolstered his arguments by boasting that he had never even read Calvin. Indeed, the renowned reformer appears not to be a major figure among the latest generation to claim the theology he made famous. Centuries ago, George Whitefield, the Calvinistic Methodist evangelist of the First Great Awakening, similarly argued: “Alas, I never read anything that Calvin wrote; my doctrines I had from Christ and his apostles; I was taught them of God.”

The relationship of theology to evangelism has become a flash point among Southern Baptists. SBC Life, the journal of the SBC’s executive committee, published two articles on Calvinism in April. In one, Malcolm Yarnell, associate professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued that Southern Baptists generally reject any notion that God “arbitrarily chooses individuals to be damned before they are born.”

“[T]he greatest tragedy is when adherence to TULIP leads to division in churches and prevents them from cooperation in, and urgency for, a passion toward fulfilling the Great Commission,” Yarnell wrote. He concluded, “Southern Baptists are first, last, and always followers of Jesus Christ, not John Calvin.”

The most provocative comments in the SBC may belong to Steve Lemke, provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In April 2005, he presented a paper on “The Future of Southern Baptists as Evangelicals.” Lemke warned, “I believe that [Calvinism] is potentially the most explosive and divisive issue facing us in the near future. It has already been an issue that has split literally dozens of churches, and it holds the potential to split the entire convention.”

Lemke noted that Calvinism has periodically waxed and waned among Southern Baptists. “However, the number of Calvinist faculty dramatically increased [starting in the 1980s and] over the next 20 years.” Lemke and many others explained to me that Calvinists like Mohler earned leadership roles during the SBC’s inerrancy battles due to their reliably conservative theology. Their academic and biblical rigor suited them for seminary positions. Now, Lemke said, their influence has made the “newest generation of Southern Baptist ministers … the most Calvinist we have had in several generations.”

Lemke doubts that Calvinism has yet reached its high-water mark in the SBC. But he is no fan of this trend. Baptism and membership figures, he said, show that the Calvinist churches of the SBC’s Founders Ministries lack commitment to evangelism. According to Lemke, the problem only makes sense, given their emphasis on God’s sovereign election.

“For many people, if they’re convinced that God has already elected those who will be elect … I don’t see how humanly speaking that can’t temper your passion, because you know you’re not that crucial to the process,” Lemke explained.

Evangelicals who adhere to Reformed theology have long chafed at such charges. They remind their critics that Whitefield, one of history’s most effective evangelists, believed God elects his church. In addition, Edwards defended the First Great Awakening’s revivals with Religious Affections. More recently, J. I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (1961) showed persuasively that there is no contradiction between those two ideas.

“I think the criticism of Reformed theology is being silenced by the mission and justice and evangelism and worship and counseling—the whole range of pastoral life,” Piper said. “We’re not the kind who are off in a Grand Rapids ghetto crossing our t’s and dotting our i’s and telling the world to get their act together. We’re in the New Orleans slums with groups like Desire Street Ministries, raising up black elders through Reformed theology from 9-year-old boys who had no chance.”

Deep into Doctrine

Calvinistic Baptists often told me they have less of a problem with churches that don’t teach election than with churches that downplay doctrine in general. An SBC Life piece published in April by Daniel Akin, a former Southern professor and current president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, presented this perspective. “Let us be known for being rigorously biblical, searching the Scriptures to determine what God really says on [God's sovereignty] and other key doctrinal issues,” Akin wrote. “For the most part, we are not doing this, and our theological shallowness is an indictment of our current state and an embarrassment to our history!”

The young people I talked to want churches to risk disagreement so they can benefit from the deeper challenges of doctrine. Joshua Harris said years after he graduated from high school, he bumped into his old youth pastor in the grocery store. The pastor seemed apologetic as they reminisced about the youth group’s party atmosphere, focused more on music and skits than Bible teaching, Harris said. But the youth pastor told Harris his students now read through Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.

“I think there’s an expectation that teens can’t handle that, or they’ll be repulsed by that,” Harris told me. “[My youth pastor] is saying the exact opposite. That’s a dramatic change in philosophy in youth ministry.”

Pastor Kent Hughes senses the same draw for students who cross the street from Wheaton College to attend College Church. “If there’s an appeal to students, it’s that we’re not playing around,” Hughes said. “We’re not entertaining them. This is life and death. My sense is that’s what they’re interested in, even from an old man.”

Perhaps an attraction to serious doctrine brought about 3,000 ministry leaders to Louisville in April for a Together for the Gospel conference. The conference’s sponsors included Mohler and Mahaney, and Piper also spoke. Most of the audience were in their 20s and 30s. Each of the seven speakers holds to the five points of TULIP. Yet none of them spoke of Calvinism unless I asked about it. They did express worry about perceived evangelical accommodation to postmodernism and criticized churches for applying business models to ministry. They mostly joked about their many differences on such historically difficult issues as baptism, church government, eschatology, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They drew unity as Calvinist evangelicals from their concerns: with seeker churches, church-growth marketing, and manipulative revival techniques.

Roger Olson, professor of theology at Truett Seminary, Baylor University, said more than just Calvinists worry about these problems. “A lot of us evangelical Arminians agree with them in their criticisms of popular folk religion,” Olson said. “I agree with their basic theological underpinnings—that doctrine is important, that grace is the decisive factor in salvation, not a decision we make.”

If Olson is right, co-belligerency on these concerns could forestall further conflict, at least on the Calvinist-Arminian debate.

A Passion for Puritans

Mark Dever hasn’t sold books to the degree Piper has. And he doesn’t head a flagship institution like his longtime friend Mohler. He doesn’t even pastor a megachurch. But oh, how strategic his church is. Hop off Washington, D.C.’s Metro on the Capitol South stop. Head north past the Library of Congress and the Capitol. Turn right and bear east before you reach the Supreme Court. A couple blocks later you’ll see Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which Dever has led for 12 years, beginning when he was 33.

Yet location isn’t what makes Dever’s church so strategic. Maybe it’s all the political maneuvering in the air, but Dever networks effectively. He conceived Together for the Gospel and otherwise works to connect conservative evangelicals who worry about the same things. Dever’s church also trains six interns at a time, imprinting his beliefs about how a local church should run through a related ministry, 9 Marks.

I visited Capitol Hill Baptist in January. The church kicked off with Sunday school, which really should have been called Sunday seminary. Class options included a survey of the New Testament, spiritual disciplines, and a systematic theology lesson on theories of the Atonement.

Such rigor can be expected from a church led by Dever, who earned a Ph.D. from Cambridge studying the Puritans. He embodies the pastoral theologians who are leading young people toward Reformed theology. He has cultivated a church community in the Puritan mold—unquestionably demanding and disciplined. And the church attracts a very young crowd. Its 525 members average 29 years old. Dever mockingly rejected my suggestion that they aim to attract an under-30 crowd. “Yes, that’s why we sing those hymns and have a [55-minute] sermon.” Dever smiled. “We’re seriously calibrated for the 18th century.”

Dever and others have turned a young generation onto some old teachers. He organizes his study around a canon of renowned church leaders that includes Augustine, Luther, Calvin, John Owen, John Bunyan, B. B. Warfield, Martin Lloyd-Jones, and Carl Henry. It’s mostly Puritans who have fueled this latest resurgence of Calvinism. Leaders like R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer have for decades told evangelicals they have something to learn from this post-Reformation movement. During the late 1950s, Banner of Truth starting reprinting classic Reformed works, including many from Puritans.

Among the Puritans, Edwards is most popular. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor and Edwards scholar Douglas Sweeney said his seminary includes many more Calvinists than 20 years ago. Not unrelated, he said among evangelicals “there is more interest in Edwards today than there has been since the first half of the 19th century.”

Garth Rosell, church history professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, has noticed his students’ increased interest in Puritan studies, especially Edwards. He suspects young evangelicals gravitate toward the Puritans looking for deeper historic roots and models for high-commitment Christianity.

That’s at least what Jordan Thomas, a 28-year-old church planter, told me about the Puritans. “I don’t read them to find out what these guys say about Calvinism,” Thomas told me in Piper’s church. “It’s their big-hearted love for Christ. They say things about their devotion to him that I’m just like, I wonder if I know the same Jesus these guys love.”

Scripture Trumps Systems

Evangelicals have long disagreed on election and free will. The debate may never be settled, given the apparent tension between biblical statements and the limits of our interpretive skills. In addition, some will always see more benefit in doctrinal depth than others.

Those fearing a new pitched battle can rest easy. That’s not because the debate will go away—for the foreseeable future, the spread of Calvinism will force many evangelicals to pick sides. And it’s not because mission will trump doctrine—young people seem to reject this dichotomy.

It’s because the young Calvinists value theological systems far less than God and his Word. Whatever the cultural factors, many Calvinist converts respond to hallmark passages like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. “I really don’t like to raise any banner of Calvinism or Reformed theology,” said Eric Lonergan, a 23-year-old University of Minnesota graduate. “Those are just terms. I just like to look at the Word and let it speak for itself.”

That’s the essence of what Joshua Harris calls “humble orthodoxy.” He reluctantly debates doctrine, but he passionately studies Scripture and seeks to apply all its truth.

“If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, ‘It’s unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?’” Harris said. “You are so amazed by grace, you’re not picking a fight with anyone, you’re just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn’t have to save anybody.”

Under The Needle. AN ETHICAL EVALUATION OF TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS

AN ETHICAL EVALUATION OF TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS

by Lorne Zelyck

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 28, number 6 (2005). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

---

SYNOPSIS

Decorating one’s body with tattoos and piercings is a recent cultural phenomenon with ancient roots. The morality of these practices should be evaluated according to their effect on the four aspects of the image of God—(1) structural, (2) functional, (3) relational, and (4) teleological.
Some within the Christian community consider tattoos and body piercings to be a desecration of the image of God on the basis that they (1) violate the believer’s conscience and God’s Law, (2) mutilate the physical body, (3) hinder unity within the church, and (4) glorify the ungodly and vulgar. In contrast, other believers consider them to be a demonstration of the image of God on the basis that they (1) exhibit artistic beauty, (2) express the free will of the believer, (3) create diversity within the church, and (4) can be a means to express spiritual truth.

Tattoos and body piercings are in themselves neither moral nor immoral. In biblical cultures, tattoos and body piercings were symbols of ownership by, devotion to, identification with, and protection by a deity or master. Depending on which deity or master these symbols represent, therefore, tattoos and body piercings either may desecrate or demonstrate the image of God. Believers who are considering tattoos or body piercings first should be led by their consciences, then should consider the effects that such symbols will have on their physical bodies, interpersonal relationships, and spiritual lives.

---

”I Didn’t Make You Like This.“ I returned home from Sid’s Tattoo Parlor to find my father standing in the kitchen with a horrified look on his face. Without saying a word, I took off my shirt and signaled for him to help. As he peeled the blood-marked bandage from my back, my father’s horror soon turned to lament. With tears trickling down his face, he sobbed, “I didn’t make you like this.” These words of disapproval from my beloved father hurt worse than the raw markings on my back. I felt rejected and didn’t know what to do, so I got in my car, drove to the edge of town, and began to pray. As my earthly father’s voice echoed in my mind, I began to ask my heavenly Father if I had made the wrong decision to go under the needle.

Tattoos and body piercings have never been as popular as they are today. I suspect many people have had experiences similar to mine—they have gone under the needle and gotten tattoos or body piercings, only to have their new “decorations” met with skepticism and wonder. Most skepticism is based on permanence and placement. Temporary tattoos and ear piercings do not usually produce concern, yet permanent tattoos and unusual body piercings can produce a negative, visceral response. Further, many within the Christian community object to tattoos and body piercings on the basis that they are unnatural and therefore immoral.

As tattoos and body piercings continue to gain popularity within mainstream culture, I believe it is important for the Christian community to evaluate critically the morality of such “decorations.” Are tattoos and body piercings intrinsically (i.e., in themselves) immoral? What is the basis for determining their morality? What, if anything, does the Bible say about these “decorations?” Does God view with approval those who are tattooed and pierced? Or does He view us with disapproval, saying, “I didn’t make you like this”?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS

Tattoos and body piercings are not unique to contemporary culture. For example, in 1991, a 5,000-year-old corpse (later named Otzi) was found frozen in a glacier with several tattoos imprinted on his skin.¹ A 4,000-year-old clay figurine from Iran was discovered to have multiple ear piercings.² The Pentateuch reveals that in approximately 1400 BC tattooing and body piercing were well-known practices in ancient Israel and among its Mesopotamian neighbors (Exod. 32:2–3; Lev. 19:28). Furthermore, a remarkable number of first-century Greek and Roman writers mention the prevalence of tattoos, and the second-century historian Herodian even described the people of northern Britain as “Picts” after the open display of their body markings.³ Throughout church history, tattoos have also been referred to in edicts, councils, and personal correspondence among clergy.

Tattoos started to gain prevalence in the Unites States when Samuel O’Reilly patented the first electric tattoo machine in 1891, which was based on an embroidering machine invented by Thomas Edison.⁴ In the twentieth century, tattoos and body piercings drew the attention of the public media. In 1936, Life magazine created a stir with an article that claimed one in ten Americans was tattooed.⁵ Current estimates on just how many people are tattooed or pierced vary widely, but the Mayo Clinic reports that approximately 20 million Americans are tattooed and an even larger number have body piercings.⁶ A nationwide Harris Interactive Poll found that 16 percent of all adults have at least one tattoo. The highest incidence of tattoos was found among Americans age 25 to 29 (36 percent) and those age 30 to 39 (28 percent).⁷ Among university students, it was reported that 23 percent had one to three tattoos, and 51 percent had one or more body piercings, aside from earlobe piercings for women.⁸ According to U.S. News and World Report, tattooing is the country’s sixth fastest growing retail business, growing at the rate of one new tattoo parlor opening its doors every day. One estimate has 30,000 tattoo and body piercing artists working in the United States with at least eight major tattoo magazines being published regularly.⁹

A BASIS FOR ETHICAL EVALUATION

Does the Christian community have a basis on which to evaluate the morality of tattoos and body piercings? Yes. In the first chapter of the Bible, humankind is described as incredibly unique. God decreed His creative will when He stated, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26).¹⁰ The Hebrew word translated “image” is tselem, which means “something cut out.”¹¹ Tselem is often used in the Old Testament to describe things such as people, coins, statues, and tumors that resemble or represent something else.¹² The Hebrew word translated “likeness” is demuth, which means “similitude” and comes from the root meaning “to be like.”¹³ In this context, therefore, tselem and demuth indicate that humankind resembles God and is like Him. This similarity and likeness is traditionally called the image of God.

Four Aspects of the Image of God

Theologians have identified four aspects of the image of God in which humans were made: (1) structural, (2) functional, (3) relational, and (4) teleological. Each aspect indicates a particular trait that makes humans uniquely like God.

(1) The structural aspect of the image of God indicates that humans have the capacity to know, to reason, and to make moral decisions (Gen. 2:16–17). (2) The functional aspect indicates that humans are to operate as God’s representatives on earth by ruling over nature (Gen. 1:26; 2:5). (3) The relational aspect of the image of God indicates that humans have the capacity to mirror the unity within the Trinity through relationships with God and other humans, and (4) the teleological aspect indicates that humans are created to glorify God through making visible His character.¹⁴

Much attention has been directed toward identifying only the spiritual implications of the image of God, while unfortunately neglecting its physical implications.¹⁵ I agree with Herman Bavinck’s affirmation that these four aspects of the image of God encompass the entire person, spiritual and physical: “Man’s body also belongs to the image of God…The body is not a tomb, but a wondrous masterpiece of God, constituting the essence of man as fully as the soul.”¹⁶ Since the physical body is included in the image of God, the morality of decorations added to it—including tattoos and body piercings—must be evaluated according to their effect on these four aspects of the image of God.

A DESECRATION OF THE IMAGE OF GOD?

Traditionally, Christians have viewed tattoos as immoral on the basis that they desecrate the image of God.17 Proponents of this view say: (1) Tattoos desecrate the structural aspect of the image of God because they violate our consciences (Rom. 2:15) and God’s Law (Lev. 19:28). In reference to his tattoo, one Christian writes, “With my depraved and back-slidden mind, I justified an abomination to God Himself, who instructs us through His divine law not to print any marks on our bodies (Lev. 19:28).”18 (2) Tattoos desecrate the functional aspect of the image of God because they mutilate the body that is supposed to be nurtured and sustained, making it vulnerable to infection. (3) The relational aspect of the image of God is desecrated by tattoos because they hinder unity within the body of Christ and violate the consciences of fellow Christians (1 Cor. 8:9–12). Psychiatrist Armando R. Favazza summarizes: “Many people—especially those belonging to non-conformist groups—get tattoos to demonstrate their defiance of traditional authority….Many studies link multiple tattoos with antisocial personality, [and] an increased incidence of assaultive behavior.”¹⁹ (4) Lastly, the teleological aspect of the image of God is desecrated by tattoos because they glorify the ungodly and vulgar, as well as convey narcissism, defiance, and arrogance—vices that are inappropriate for Christians (1 Pet. 3:3). Jean-Chris Miller, author of The Body Art Book, supports this point by stating, “Death and darkness have always been a classic tattoo theme—skulls, snakes, demons, and spider webs are all conventional tattoo imagery.”²⁰

Many of the same arguments are used to support the view that body piercings are immoral. Proponents of this view say: (1) Body piercings desecrate the structural aspect of the image of God because they are an unnatural addition to the physical framework of the body. (2) They desecrate the functional aspect of the image of God because they mutilate the body. (3) Body piercings desecrate the relational aspect of the image of God because they hinder unity within the body of Christ and violate the consciences of fellow Christians. (4) Piercings desecrate the teleological aspect of the image of God because they are ostentatious (1 Tim. 2:9) and may indicate psychological and behavioral maladies. In her book, In the Flesh, Victoria Pitts writes, “Practices such as piercing, scarification, and branding are linked to anorexia, bulimia, and what has been called ‘delicate self-harm syndrome,’ which is an addictive, repetitive, non-decorative form of skin cutting, usually on the arm or legs. This is considered an expression of absolute hatred or anger.”²¹

A DEMONSTRATION OF THE IMAGE OF GOD?

A small minority of Christians disagrees with the traditional opinion and believes tattoos are moral on the basis that they are a demonstration of the image of God. Proponents of this view say: (1) Tattoos are a demonstration of the structural aspect of the image of God because humans are created with the ability to recognize artistic beauty and decorate themselves accordingly. Miller identifies aesthetics as one of the many reasons why people get tattoos.²² (2) Tattoos are a demonstration of the functional aspect of the image of God because humans have the free will to do what they want with their bodies (1 Cor. 6:12). Miller, again, bluntly states, “It’s your body and you can do what you like with it.”²³ (3) The relational aspect of the image of God is demonstrated by tattoos because they create diversity within the body of Christ. Amy Krakow begs for unity among humankind when she exclaims that tattoos are “just ink; body art. Not some scarlet letter telling the world we’re wanton criminals, sexual perverts, biker scum, sailors, soldiers or just plain weird.”²⁴ (4) Lastly, tattoos demonstrate the teleological aspect of the image of God because they are a medium by which a Christian can communicate God’s character. A. Gell expresses the external as well as internal communicatory nature of tattoos by stating, “The inside-facing and the outside-facing skins are…one indivisible structure, and hence the skin continually communicates the external world to the internal one, and the internal world to the external one.”²⁵

Many of these same arguments are used to support the view that body piercings are moral. Proponents of this view say: (1) Body piercings demonstrate the structural aspect of the image of God because humans are able to decorate themselves in a way that they view as aesthetically pleasing. (2) They demonstrate the functional aspect of the image of God because humans have the free will to do what they want with their bodies (1 Cor. 6:12). (3) The relational aspect of the image of God is demonstrated by body piercings because they create diversity within the body of Christ. (4) Piercings demonstrate the teleological aspect of the image of God because they are a medium by which a Christian can communicate God’s character.

RELEVANT BIBLICAL PASSAGES

The Hebrew word qa‘aqa‘, translated “tattoo,” appears only once in the Old Testament, in a prohibition: “You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:28). Qa‘aqa‘ is commonly defined as a “cut, incision” or “gross cutting of the skin,” yet within this context it most likely refers to painting or scarring of the skin.²⁶ It is unlikely that qa‘aqa‘ refers to self-mutilation, since that concept was already referred to earlier in the verse in the prohibition against cutting one’s body. I believe the cultural context helps explain this prohibition against tattoos. During this period, tattoos signified ownership and devotion, since a common practice in Babylonia and Egypt was to tattoo a slave with his owner’s name or the name of a god. Tattooing and self-mutilation also were religious mourning rites connected with the Canaanite fertility god.²⁷

Theologian Gerhard Kittel explains the idolatrous nature of tattoos in the Israelite culture: “When a person was tattooed he became dedicated to the god and became its servant, as well as came under its protection, so that he should not be harmed.”²⁸ Tattoos, therefore, were associated strongly with idolatry and were prohibited because Yahweh’s exclusive claim of ownership and devotion is incompatible with the false-god cults.
Some rabbinical sources suggest that the prohibition was limited only to heathen, idolatrous, and superstitious tattoos.²⁹ For example, rabbis believed that the master who marks his slave so that he does not run away is exempt from the prohibition in Leviticus 19:28, and the Tosepta records a rabbinic prohibition that only forbids tattooing the name of another god.³⁰

Judging by the number of biblical references, it seems apparent that body piercing was an established custom among the Israelites. These decorations were primarily worn for aesthetic reasons, yet they too represented ownership and status. Royalty, brides, and the nation of Israel are all described as being adorned with nose rings (Gen. 24:47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12) and earrings (Isa. 3:19; Ezek. 16:12). These decorations were worn not only by women, but also by men and children (Exod. 32:2; Judg. 8:24).

Similar to tattoos, body piercings may have had an idolatrous connotation. For example, when Jacob renewed the covenant with Yahweh, his household “gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had and the rings which were in their ears” (Gen. 35:4). Unlike tattoos that were prohibited in the Pentateuch, however, body piercings were prescribed. Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:17 both indicate that a master was to pierce the ear of his slave to symbolize ownership and permanent servitude.

Tattoos and body piercings are not mentioned in the New Testament. In Galatians 6:17, however, Paul exclaims, “From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.” The Greek word translated “brand-mark” is stigma, which was a mark pricked, in or branded on, the body.

Similar to tattoos within the Mesopotamian culture, a stigma denoted ownership and devotion, as well as identification. In the Greco-Roman world, property such as animals, slaves, criminals, and later soldiers carried these marks. Recruits to the Roman army were most likely tattooed on the hand with the abbreviated name of the emperor, whereas criminals and slaves were marked on the forehead with their offense. ³¹

The meaning of Paul’s “brand-marks” cannot be answered with complete certainty. Historically, a tattoo was a source of imagery and exaggeration in literature. In the fifth century BC, a slave in Aristophanes’ Wasps effectively complains, “I’m being tattooed to death with a stick.” The humor seems to lie within the similarity of a tattoo to the black and blue marks left by a beating.32 Perhaps Paul was using “brand-marks” as a metaphor referring to his bruises, welts, and scars—the visible signs of the mistreatment he received as a slave of Christ (2 Cor. 11:23–29; Acts 14:19).³³

Paul’s brand-marks further served as signs of his devotion to, and ownership by, Jesus. Just as tattoos symbolized devotion to, and protection by, a god, no one was able to harm Paul—the slave and property of Jesus—and go unpunished.

Symbolism throughout the Old and New Testaments

Other biblical passages also describe literal and figurative markings and writings on the body that may symbolize ownership or devotion to a master. In Genesis 17:11, God instituted circumcision as a symbol of the covenant between Abraham and Himself. For Israel, the Shema (Deut. 6:4) was to be remembered as if it were permanently marked on their hands and forehead (Deut. 6:8). The prophet Isaiah proclaims that one day people will write on their hands, “Belonging to the Lord” (Isa. 44:5), and in reference to Jerusalem, God Himself states, “Behold, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands” (Isa. 49:16). The prophet Ezekiel describes a mark that an angel will set on the foreheads of the faithful to protect them from the sword of the avenging angel (Ezek. 9:4, 6).

The infamous mark of the Beast in the book of Revelation is described as a mark that the ungodly receive on their foreheads or hands as a symbol of their devotion to him (13:16–17). The faithful receive a different mark on their foreheads: the name of God or Christ (14:1; 22:4).

To summarize, the Old and New Testaments both indicate that tattoos and body piercings are symbols of ownership, devotion, and identification. These symbols denote protection by the deity or master to which they refer, and retribution toward anyone who harms those who bear them.

THE AMORALITY OF TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS

A survey of these biblical passages reveals that tattoos, body piercings, and permanent markings are not essentially immoral; rather, they are merely symbols that indicate ownership, devotion, and identification. I believe that tattoos and body piercings, therefore, are neither intrinsically moral nor immoral; they are amoral. This is because they neither inherently desecrate nor demonstrate the image of God, though they have potential to do either. I believe that:

1. Tattoos and body piercings do not inherently desecrate the structural aspect of the image of God because they do not inherently violate the conscience of a Christian. The prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 is part of the Law that Christ has superseded (Eph. 2:5). Christians are free from the Levitical Law and are now under the law of Christ, which does not reiterate the prohibition against tattoos.³⁴ The timeless principles related to tattoos and body piercings remain: God’s people are not to be idolatrous or to imply devotion to false gods through their bodily decorations or adornment.
Tattoos further demonstrate the structural aspect of the image of God because humans are created with the ability to recognize beauty and decorate themselves accordingly.³⁵ Surely the appreciation of beauty is very subjective and beauty may truly lie in the eye of the beholder. Whatever one’s personal opinion of beauty, however, tattoos are legally considered to be art. On November 12, 1982, then governor Jerry Brown announced that tattoos are officially designated as art in California.³⁶ Tattoo artists and body piercers are also classified by the U.S. Department of Labor in the tax bracket A194—Artists, Performers, and Related Workers.³⁷

2. In general, tattoos and body piercings do not desecrate the functional aspect of the image of God. Tattoos permanently mark the body, but I do not think they can be classified with body modification or mutilation, which irreversibly alters the functional structure of the body.³⁸ Similarly, most body piercings are temporal and can be removed without causing permanent damage.

In addition, tattoos and body piercings are not proven to cause disease. During the Old Testament period, tattoo and scarification instruments were presumably a source of disease and infection. A common theme within the holiness code is that many of the laws were given to prevent the Israelites from experiencing illness. God’s prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28, therefore, may have been His gracious means of disease prevention. Current tattooing and piercing techniques, which include one-time-use needles, individual ink pots, latex gloves, autoclave equipment, and stainless-steel instruments and jewelry, have all but eliminated the spread of disease. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no data exists that indicates that exposure to tattooing and body piercing alone places people at increased risk for Hepatitis C or HIV.³⁹

3. Regrettably, tattoos and body piercings can desecrate the relational aspect of the image of God to the extent they hinder unity within the body of Christ and violate the consciences of fellow Christians. In 1 Corinthians 8:1–13, Paul exhorts Christians to painstakingly avoid violating a weaker brother’s conscience. Bible scholar David Lowery explains this passage: “Paul did not say that a knowledgeable Christian must abandon his freedom to the ignorant prejudice of a ‘spiritual’ bigot. The ‘weak brother’ was one who followed the example of another Christian, not one who carped and coerced that knowledgeable Christian into a particular behavioral pattern.”⁴⁰ The apparent principle is that Christians are to be watchful of their actions to prevent knowingly compelling a weaker brother to violate his conscience. Applying this principle to our discussion, if a knowledgeable Christian by getting a tattoo or body piercing will compel a weaker brother to do the same and thus cause the weaker brother to violate his own conscience, Paul instructs the knowledgeable Christian simply to refrain for the sake of unity.

4. Tattoos and body piercings may desecrate or demonstrate the teleological aspect of the image of God, depending on the focus of their symbolism. Since tattoos and body piercings are amoral symbols that indicate ownership, devotion, and identification, the morality of these decorations depends on their intended meaning and the deity or master to which they express devotion. If a person were tattooed or pierced simply to look ostentatious or to portray something odious and offensive, this would clearly desecrate the teleological aspect of the image of God (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3).

Tattoos and body piercings, however, also have the potential to communicate the character and truths of God to an external world, as well as remind their bearers of the truths that these decorations symbolize. Just as tattoos and body piercings symbolize that their bearers are devoted to a master or god, they also remind their bearers to whom they belong. Christians throughout history have been tattooed with Christian symbols as an indication of ownership and devotion to Christ. Procopius of Gaza, writing at the end of the fifth century, says that many Christians chose to be marked on their wrists or arms with the sign of the cross or the name of Christ. Mark Gustafson writes, “Religious tattoos were in use at the same time that institutions of political authority were using tattoos in a punitive sense.”⁴¹ In late antiquity and the Middle Ages, punitive tattooing was as frequent as in the classical Greek and Roman eras, yet orthodox Christians willingly had themselves tattooed with the emblems and name of Jesus.⁴² These examples indicate that tattoos had begun to take on a new meaning within the Christian community: they went from identifying a person as a criminal or the property of an earthly master to an expression of devotion to Christ. Body piercings likewise have taken on new meaning within the Christian community as a reminder to the pierced that Christ was pierced for them.

Tattoos and body piercings, then, are amoral on the basis that they do not inherently desecrate the image of God, but rather have the ability to demonstrate the image of God. Within the current Christian community, however, tattoos and body piercings unfortunately have had a divisive effect and consequently desecrate the relational aspect of the image of God. Unity within the Christian community is rare, yet important because it is a primary way to witness to unbelievers. Jesus prayed to the Father that all believers would “be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me” (John 17:23). Paul repeatedly reminds, encourages, and commands Christian communities to be united as well, since they are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26).

Is it possible that Paul’s brand-marks mentioned in Galatians 6:17 may have violated the conscience of a “weaker brother” and caused disunity? Probably not, since they were involuntarily inflicted. Someone would only discover the meaning of Paul’s marks if he explained it to them. The meanings behind tattoos and piercings need to be discussed and explained openly among Christians on both sides of the issue to preserve unity. I hope they will seek to understand one another’s concerns and make appropriate conciliations. Those who believe tattoos and body piercings are a desecration of the image of God may have their conscience strengthened by realizing the spiritual truths that these decorations can portray; whereas those who believe tattoos and body piercings are a demonstration of the image of God may regulate their freedom in Christ by not decorating themselves to look like circus performers or walking tackle boxes.

“MOM, I WANT SLEEVES AND MY EARS GAUGED”⁴³

If you are a parent or involved in any form of youth ministry, I suspect you have been (or soon will be) faced with this ethical dilemma. I recommend advising any Christian who is considering getting a tattoo or body piercing to consider how these decorations may affect the four aspects of the image of God that they bear. Some questions to consider may be:

(1) What is your motivation for getting a tattoo or body piercing? Would it violate your conscience or the consciences of your family members, friends, and fellow believers in Christ? Is it legal in your state and at your age to be tattooed or pierced?

(2) Is the parlor you go to certified and clean? Have you seen other tattoos or body piercings that your artist of choice has done? Are you prepared to have this symbol permanently imprinted on you body? How will you feel about your tattoo in 20 years? Are you addicted to tattoos or body piercings?

(3) What will your parents, spouse, or church members think of your tattoo or body piercing? Will it disrupt the unity within your Christian community? Will this decoration prevent you from accomplishing God’s will for your life? Is the decoration auspicious? Are you able to cover it up?

(4) Does this tattoo or body piercing symbolize something that is relevant to your relationship with Christ? Would it benefit or hinder your relationship with Him?

If the tattoo or body piercing (1) will not violate your conscience or the conscience of others, (2) will not cause permanent harm or disease to your physical body, (3) will not harm your interpersonal relationships, and (4) is symbolic of a spiritual truth that will benefit your relationship with Christ and your witness to the world, then I believe that it will not desecrate the image of God and you as a Christian are free in Christ to go under the needle.

---

NOTES:

1. Steve Gilbert, Tattoo History: A Source Book (New York: Juno, 2000), 11.
2. Paul Mason, Just the Facts: Body Piercing and Tattoos (Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2003), 8.
3. Terisa Green, The Tattoo Encyclopedia: A Guide to Choosing Your Tattoo (New York: Fireside, 2003), xi.
4. Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book (New York: Berkley, 1997), 12.
5. Amy Krakow, The Total Tattoo Book (New York: Warner Books, 1994), 6.
6. Mayo Clinic staff, “Tattoos and Piercings: What to Know before You Go under the Needle,” May 17, 2004, MayoClinic.com, http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=MC00020.
7. Joy Marie Sever, “A Third of Americans with Tattoos Say They Make Them Feel More Sexy,” The Harris Poll #58, October 8, 2003, HarrisInteractive, http://www.harrisinteractive.com/ harris_poll/index.asp?PID=407.
8. CNN/Money, “Don’t Hide That Tattoo,” May 31, 2005, CNN/Money, http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/31/news/economy/challenger_tattoo/.
9. Margo DeMello, Bodies of Inscription: A Cultural History of the Modern Tattoo Community (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000), 13.
10. All Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.
11. F. Brown, S. Driver, C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), s.v. “tselem,” 853.
12. The Mormon view that humans bear a direct physical resemblance to God is incorrect, but it is difficult to reject based on the definition of tselem alone; rather, I reject the Mormon view of the image of God based on passages that indicate that God cannot be seen by humans (John 1:18) and that God is spirit (John 4:24). Furthermore, Israel was not to make graven images since they did not see the form of the Lord when He spoke to them from the midst of the fire at Horeb (Deut. 4:15).
13. Brown, s.v. “demuth,” 197–98.
14. I am indebted to Steven Tracy for his explanation of three different aspects of the image of God: functional, relational, and visible (which I term teleological). Steven R. Tracy, Mending the Soul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 24–25. For a description of the structural aspect, see Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 70–71. For a further description of the various aspects of the image of God, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 445–49; and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 520–29.
15. Recently, more attention has been focused on developing a theology of the body. In his 1979 Audiences, Pope John Paul II began laying foundations for a theology of the body, repeatedly emphasizing the urgency of the task. Fifteen years later, Mary Prokes defined the theology of the body as the discipline that “reflects upon a faith understanding of the lived body and the material universe.” See Mary Prokes, Toward a Theology of the Body (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 26, 30. The theology of the body is clearly an issue that further needs to be explored and developed by the Christian community.
16. Hoekema, 68.
17. A recent phenomenon among upper-class women is cosmetic tattooing, conveniently termed “permanent beauty treatment,” where eyebrows, eyelids, lips, and cheeks are tattooed for aesthetic reasons. To remain consistent, Christians who are opposed to tattooing must be opposed to permanent beauty treatment.
18. Terry Watkins, “Tattoo: The Mark of Regret,” Biblebelievers.com, http://www.biblebelievers.com/ watkins_tattoos/regret.html.
19. Armando R. Favazza, quoted in Gilbert, 159.
20. Miller, 56.
21. Victoria Pitts, In the Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2003), 25.
22. Miller, 29.
23. Ibid., 31.
24. Krakow, 144.
25. A. Gell, quoted in Mark Gustafson, “The Tattoo in the Later Roman Empire and Beyond,” in Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European and American History, ed. Jane Caplan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 25. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), s.v. “qa‘aqa‘.” Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 7, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), s.v. “stigma.”
26. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), s.v. “qa‘aqa‘.”
27. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 7, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), s.v. “stigma.”
28. Kittel, 660.
29. Gilbert, 150.
30. Jacob Milgrom, The Anchor Bible, vol. 3A, Leviticus 17–22 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1695.
31. Kittel, s.v. “stigma.”
32. Aristophanes, Wasps, in Loeb Classical Library, vol. 2, trans. Jeffery Henderson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), line 1296.
33. C. P. Jones, “Stigma and Tattoo,” in Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European and American History, ed. Jane Caplan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 10.
34. If this is not so, Christian men violate the Law every time they shave (Lev. 19:27).
35. Some may suggest that the structural aspect of the image of God, which allows humans to make moral decisions including personal adornment, must be governed by the functional aspect of the image of God, which opposes body modification. Many aesthetic treatments that may be considered body modifications, however, are accepted within the Christian community such as dental braces, reconstructive plastic surgery, circumcision, and hair removal. It seems more cogent in light of these to evaluate the aspects of the image of God individually.
36. Krakow, 14.
37. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational Classification System Manual,” October 16, 2001, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/ocsm/comA194.htm.
38. It is for this reason that the Catholic Catechism does not prohibit tattoos. See “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” under “Respect for the Dignity of Persons,” Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P80.HTM.
39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Hepatitis C: Percutaneous Exposures in Other Settings,” June 23, 2005, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/ ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/c_training/edu/1/epidem-trans-5.htm. J. F. Walvoord, R. B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983–1985), s.v. “1 Cor. 8:13.”
40. J. F. Walvoord, R. B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983–1985), s.v. “1 Cor. 8:13.”
41. Gustafson, 29.
42. Jones, 13.
43. A sleeve is a tattoo that entirely covers the arm from wrist to shoulder, and a gauge is the increment by which enlarged body piercings are measured.

UK’s Make me a Christian

Unexpected Detractors for UK’s Make Me a Christian

Christian participant and viewers say reality show is harmful to faith.

The volunteers aim to live by the teachings of the Bible for three weeks, guided by the Rev. George Hargreaves, outspoken political activist and leader of the Christian Party, and his team of mentors. The participants take Communion, get their own Bibles, receive lessons on the correct way to view sex, and learn about service in soup kitchens.

The three-episode show has been airing Sunday nights on Britain’s Channel 4. The final episode airs Sunday night.

“I was pleased at first to hear that the producers were trying to make Christianity accessible to people who might not usually watch religious programming,” said Charis Gibson, senior press officer for the Evangelical Alliance. After watching the first two episodes, however, she said, “I’m starting to think I would prefer spending my Sunday nights being bashed repeatedly in the face with a large, leather-bound King James Version.”

Other British Christians are reacting with similar dismay.

“The program says little about relationship and a great deal about regulation,” said Melvyn Cooke, minister of Gillingham Methodist Church. “While there is a slim chance it may promote conversation, by and large my view is that it is damaging to the gospel.”

Even the Christians on the show are unhappy. Joanna Jepson, chaplain at the London College of Fashion and one of the mentors on the show, agrees. Describing the show as “sensational,” “irresponsible,” and “contrived,” she took legal action to compel the producers to remove her scenes from the last episode. Those efforts were rebuffed.

Jepson said the show’s producers were only interested in fostering conflict and presenting Christians as people obsessed with sex and imposing Christian standards on everyone else, according to The Daily Telegraph.

“We were encouraged to take part on the understanding that we were dealing with a group of people who genuinely wanted to embrace Christianity,” she told the newspaper. “But that was clearly not the case.”

The producers at Channel 4 seem to be trying to get a grip on the lifestyle of Christians, not the foundation of the faith, said Malcolm Smith, director of Youth for Christ in Gillingham.

“In doing this they have edited a warped view of evangelical Christianity,” he said. “There seems to be very little mention of Jesus, and little mention of love. The program portrays that you can’t be a believer or follower of Christ until you get [the rules] sorted out. Surely that goes against ‘whilst we were still sinners Christ died for us.’”

Christianity isn’t the producers’ first stop. Channel 4 aired Make Me A Muslim last Christmas, showing seven volunteers living according to Islamic teachings for three weeks. Their homes were emptied of alcohol, pork, inappropriate clothing, and other items forbidden by Islam. They were asked to pray and fast, and the women dressed in hijabs. Muslims objected, saying the show focused on the rules instead of the faith.

Great Britain has been an incubator for many shows that successfully cross to the United States, including Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?, American Idol, (called Pop Idol in the U.K.), and The Office.

Skateboarding Christian – Tim Byrne

C28.com

Hip, Modern, Christian Clothing with a Christ-centered message. C28.com

taken from c28.com

C28 is a Christian retail store chain, offering an alternative to the mainstream mall stores. The Christian clothing, music, jewelry and accessories reflect a clean and positive Christian lifestyle. C28 stands for Colossians 2:8, Not Of This World (NOTW), and all about Jesus!

C28 donates a certain percentage of all purchases to youth ministries. The mission at C28 is to Glorify God by sharing the life changing gospel message of grace, truth and love of Jesus. So far, 10697 people have come to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior since opening 6 years ago. All praise goes to God!

TO GLORIFY GOD BY SHARING THE LIFE CHANGING GOSPEL MESSAGE OF GRACE, TRUTH AND LOVE FOUND IN JESUS CHRIST. “He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” Mark 16:15 TO RUN A PROFITABLE & GROWING BUSINESS THAT PROVIDES THE FINANCES REQUIRED TO PREACH THE GOSPEL! “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” 1 Tim 5:17 “See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” Col 2:8 “Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act towards outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.” Colossians 4:2-5 Attitude “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.” Col 3:23 Truth “Simply let your `Yes’ be `Yes’, and your `No’, `No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” Matthew 5:37 Sense of Urgency “Do you not say, “Four months more and then the harvest?” I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest.” John 4:35 United in Christ “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.” 1 Corinthians 12:12 Respect “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” Eph 4:29 Effectiveness “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.” Proverbs 14:23 Responsibility “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.” Luke 16:10

Q: What is C28?

A: C28 Christian stores offer an alternative to mainstream mall stores. The products reflect a clean and positive Christian lifestyle. C28 stands for Colossians 2:8

Q: How did C28 start?

A: Traveling through Victorville, Aurelio and his son “JR” ran into a store called “Christian ‘Head-shop” The store was oozing cool. The Lord then led them to reach the youth in malls across the country with the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Q: What happens after a person comes to Christ in a C28 store?

We give them a free bible and refer them to a local church. We also ask them to join a bible study. Like Phillip’s encounter with the eunuch, we pray the Holy Spirit and and the bible will disciple them. Acts 8:26

What are the positive effects of mixing fashion and faith?

Christian “Witness Wear” conveys a clean and positive lifestyle, encouraging people to share the gospel with others.

Do people wear the shirts with the right message in their hearts or just for the “cool” factor?

In either case, the Lords word (scriptures) never returns back void.

Why do C28 stores look worldly?

While C28 stores are relevant to youth culture, C28 stores are bold about Christ! They are a place of evangelism, discipleship, fellowship and prayer!

Does C28 donate any profits?

C28 donates 10%-15% of all earnings to Christ Centered Ministries.

Are you making money off of teenager’s need to fit in?

Our bottom line is that 10697 people have received eternal salvation, accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior!!!!!!!

Jesus knocked over the tables of the “money-changers” at the marketplace. Would He do that at C28?

They were conducting commerce in their place of worship, and on the Sabbath. In addition, the money changers were also defrauding the people by using rigged scales.

Why are you open on Sundays?

Jesus said if someone needs help on the Sabbath, then help him. Believers are not bound by legalism but live by grace.

Why do you mix business and faith?

It was the Greeks who separated the sacred work from the secular work (business). The bible says to do everything as onto the Lord.

Why are your prices high?

We operate in malls with very high rents. Our prices are the same if not lower than other mall stores.

Why is there a focus on store sales as well as ministry?

We must pay employees, the mall, and suppliers. Without sales, the C28 ministry cannot continue nor expand.

Can you franchise a C28 store?

C28 is currently offering Franchise opportunities. For more information, please visit the C28 Franchise website.

What has been most rewarding thing or experience for you over the last eight years?

#1 – Is that by Gods grace we have participated in & witnessed god’s holy spirit save 10697 people!!! #2 – is to know saved sinners like us can be used for his glory. #3 – has been to walk by faith in spite of difficult circumstances, to trust & wait on the lord, and then experience God’s 100% blessing & faithfulness over our business.

Is there a story or stories that have impacted you from the stores, outreaches, or other?

The changed lives! People that now have a hope, a promise and eternal life! People that are now alive in Christ instead of committing suicide!!!

C28 is now sponsoring bands, can you explain how and why you are doing this?

We sponsor bands like “Seventh day Slumber” because they are bold about Jesus, preach the gospel and lead thousands to Christ at their concerts. We are sponsoring about 12 Christian bands!

What is the greatest lesson you have learned from God, people, and life experience?

If it were not by God’s grace, I would not be here today. By god’s grace I was pulled out of the pit. The grace of Jesus Christ is ever present. His love and kindness is never ending. I am grateful to Jesus for his sin sacrifice on the cross, so that all who believe in him can be saved!

How has the company grown from the first year to now? Did you expect this growth?

By Gods grace we have 3 companies now! God willing in 2008 there will be 13 c28 stores, a growing NOTW clothing company wholesaling to other retailers, and an international C28.COM online business. To God be all the glory!!!